1. Recruitment — Candidate lacked prescribed educational qualification — Appointment sought based on officer's statement. (Para 5 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 1319
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Mohapatra : Shivaraj V.Patil
State Of U.P.
Versus
Vijay Kumar Misra
Case No. : 7248 of 2001
Date of Decision : 9/21/01
A candidate must possess the prescribed eligibility qualifications at the time of application or the cut-off date. In the absence of a relaxation clause in the rules, an unqualified candidate cannot be considered for appointment or compared with qualified candidates based on merit.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Eligibility Qualifications - Appointment to Public Post - Possession of prescribed qualifications at the time of submission of application or by the cut-off date is mandatory for a candidate to be eligible for consideration - Where no power is vested in any authority to relax the prescribed qualifications, a candidate who does not possess them cannot be compared with candidates who possess the qualifications and were appointed - Statements regarding the appointment of persons with lower merit are irrelevant if the candidate in question did not fall within the zone of consideration due to lack of eligibility. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
A candidate applied for the post of sub-deputy inspector (basic) without possessing the required educational qualification, specifically a bachelor's degree in education or the necessary certificate, at the time of application and selection. Although the candidate obtained the certificate subsequently, the service commission did not consider him for the post. A single judge of the High Court directed the government to appoint the candidate based on a statement by a government official that persons with lower merit than the respondent had been appointed. This judgment was subsequently confirmed by a division bench.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the candidate lacked the prescribed qualifications at the time of application and selection. Since the rules and advertisement provided no power for relaxation of these qualifications, the candidate was ineligible. The finding that persons of lower merit were appointed was based on a misconception, as those persons possessed the minimum eligibility qualifications, whereas the respondent did not.
Issues: Whether a court can issue a direction for the appointment of a candidate to a vacant post when the candidate did not possess the prescribed educational qualifications at the time of application or selection.
Ratio Decidendi: When eligibility qualifications are prescribed under rules, an applicant must possess them by the application date or cut-off date to be eligible. Without a specific rule allowing for relaxation, an unqualified candidate cannot be placed in the zone of consideration or compared to qualified candidates on the basis of merit.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State argued candidate ineligible for lacking qualification; officer's statement that lesser merited candidates appointed was irrelevant. (Para 3 , 4 , 7 )
3. High Court erred in relying on officer's confession; candidate without prescribed qualification was not in zone of consideration. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. A candidate lacking prescribed qualification at cut-off date is ineligible; no comparison with those appointed is permissible. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court's order set aside. (Para 8 )
6. Can a candidate be appointed to a post without possessing the prescribed qualifications at the cut-off date?
No. A candidate who does not possess the prescribed qualification by the cut-off date is ineligible and cannot be considered for appointment. (Para 7 )
7. Is an officer's statement that lesser merited candidates were appointed relevant for a candidate lacking prescribed qualifications?
No. Such a statement is irrelevant because a candidate without the prescribed qualification is not within the zone of consideration. (Para 7 )
JUDGMENT
D.P.MOHAPATRA, J.
(1) LEAVE is granted.
(2) IN this appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the judgment rendered by a division bench of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) in special appeal no. 381 (s) B of 1999 confirming the judgment of the learned single judge is under challenge.
(3) THE learned single judge in the judgment passed in writ petition no. 4756(8) of 1997 had directed the state government and the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission to appoint the petitioner, who is respondent herein, in the vacant post of sub-deputy inspector (basic) [for short SDI (basic)] relying on the statement made by Shri J.K. Dwivedi, under secretary (karmic), who was present in the court. On perusal of the judgment it appears that the under secretary had stated before the court that persons having lower merit than the writ petitioner have been appointed in the post of SDI (basic) and that the writ petitioner can be considered for the said post since he has in the meantime got L.T. certificate. As noted earlier, the learned single judge issued the direction for appointment of the writ petitioner relying on the statement of the officer.
(4) THE division bench declined to interfere with the judgment of the learned single judge for the reason that the judgment was based on confession made on behalf of the respondent.
(5) THE relevant facts over which there in no dispute may be stated thus :
THE respondent herein did not have the educational qualification prescribed under the rules for the post of SDI (basic) as he had no degree of bachelor in education and did not have the L.T. certificate at the time of submission of the application and also at the time of selection. Subsequent thereto he got the L.T. certificate. As expected, the service commission had not considered him for the post of SDI (basic) for want of prescribed qualification.
(6) THE question for consideration is whether the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could issue a direction for appointment of the respondent as SDI (basic) in a vacant post.
(7) THE position is fairly well settled that when a set of eligibility qualifications are prescribed under the rules and an applicant who does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post at the time of submission of application or by the cut-off date, if any, described under the rules or stated in the advertisement, is not eligible to be considered for such post. It is relevant to note here that in the rules or in the advertisement no power was vested in any authority to make any relaxation relating to the prescribed qualifications for the post. Therefore, the case of a candidate who did not come within the zone of consideration for the post could not be compared with a candidate who possess the prescribed qualifications and was considered and appointed to the post. Therefore, the socalled confession made by the officer in the court that persons having lower merit than the respondent have been appointed as SDI (basic), having been based on misconception is wholly irrelevant. The learned single judge clearly erred in relying on such a statement for issuing the direction for appointment of the respondent. The division bench was equally in error in confirming the judgment of the learned single judge. Thus the judgment of the learned single judge as confirmed by the division bench is unsustainable and has to be set aside.
(8) THE appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned single judge in writ petition no. 4756(SS) of 1997 as confirmed by the division bench in special appeal no. 381 (S)B of 1999 is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.
